Jefferson Davis' Address to the
National Democracy

Washington, D.C., May 7, 1860

The undersigned, members of the national democratic party, supporters
of its principles, and deeply anxious, by promoting its harmony, to
preserve unimpaired the efficiency of its organization, desire to join
in counsel with their democratic brethren throughout the United States.

The proceedings of the Convention recently assembled at Charleston
have developed a divergence of opinion between the delegations of the
different States in relation to the principles which form the basis of
our Union. The national democratic platform adopted at Cincinnati in
1856 met the cordial approval of all who believe these United States to
be, what their very name imports, a union of States equal, sovereign,
and endowed in all respects with equal rights. This approval was based
on what seemed to us to be the plain meaning of the resolutions embraced
in that platform.

During the four years, however, which have since intervened, it has
become painfully apparent that the construction deemed by us so
manifestly right is controverted by many members of our party; that
other principles are supposed to find contenance in that
platform--principles, in out judgment, subversive of the true theory of
the Government and of the Constitution to which our Union owes its
birth, and on whose preservation its permanent existence depends.

What is the history of the recent Convention at Charleston?

Seventeen States, forming a majority of the whole, adopted with
remarkable unanimity a platform of principles so worded as to avoid the
possibility of misconstruction--principles deemed political axioms by
all who uphold the equal rights of the States as the very basis of the
Confederacy. Many delegates from the remaining sixteen States concurred
in opinion with this majority, conspicuous amongst whom were delegates
from Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

The States which adopted this platform give electoral votes which can
be relied on with absolute certainty in favor of democratic nominees,
and well-grounded confidence is entertained of a like result in
Pennsylvania and New Jersey. These seventeen States united with
Pennsylvania alone comprise a majority of the entire electoral vote of
the United States, able to elect the democratic nominees against the
combined opposition of all the remaining States.

This platform was deliberately rejected by a combination composed of a
small fraction of the delegates from the seventeen democratic States
and a very large majority of the delegates of the remaining sixteen
States; and a resolution was adopted in its stead simply reaffirming the
principles of the Cincinnati platform, without explanation or
interpretation of its disputed meaning. This was done with the
openly-avowed purpose of enabling the democratic party to wage battle
with some chance of success in certain Northern and Western States by
presenting to the people as its doctrines principles openly and
expressly repudiated by a majority of the democratic State delegations,
and by a majority approaching unanimity of the democratic electoral
votes of the Union.

The delegations of eight States, together with a portion of that of
Delaware, faithful adherents of our party and firm supporters of its
principles, were thus, by sheer force of votes cast by delegates from
States that will certainly vote for the republican candidates, compelled
to withdraw from the Convention, because, in the language of a
distinguished delegate [Ethelbert Barksdale],
they felt "that it was a burning imputation upon the honor and
patriotism of the party, that, claiming to be national, and claiming to
have principles for its guide, it should acknowledge for its declaration
of faith a creed upon which are placed two distinctly opposite
interpretations by its own advocates."

We cannot refrain from expressing our admiration and approval of this
lofty manifestation of adherence to principle, rising superior to all
considerations of expediency, to all trammels of party, and looking with
a single eye to the defence of the constitutional rights of the States.

The delegations of other democratic States, however, (including a few
delegates from the seceding States,) not less faithful in devotion to
principles, were more hopeful of obtaining from their brethren some
satisfactory recognition of sound principles, and decided on remaining
in the Convention after distinctly declaring, however, their
determination also to withdraw if their just expectations should be
disappointed.

It is thus apparent that there was almost entire unanimity of
principle in the delegations of the only States on which absolute
reliance can be placed for democratic electoral votes, whilst there
existed diversity of opinion as to the line of policy best calculated to
secure the triumph of those principles. Nor is it matter of surprise
that in a conjuncture fo unexpected and anomalous, when, in the
enunciation of democratic principles, the voice of Virginia was
overborne by that of Ohio, and Louisiana and Arkansas were forced to
succumb to Vermont and Michigan, there should be excited feelings,
divided counsels, and discordant action.

In the subsequent proceedings of the Convention, however, we think
that distinct intimations may be discerned of a disposition on the part
of the Convention to recede from its determination, and to afford,
either by an amendment of the platform or in some other manner equally
satisfactory, such recognition of principles as would effectually
obviate misconstruction and secure the harmonious action of the party,
and that it was only because of these intimations that the delegations
of the remaining democratic States consented to join in the ballots
which took place with no other effect than to induce an adjournment to
Baltimore to the 18th of June, whilst the seceding delegations adjourned
to meet at Richmond on the 2d Monday of the same month.

On this state of facts the path seems open for the united action of
the party, and no insuperable obstacle opposes the restoration of its
harmony. So believing, we insist that our position as representatives of
democratic States and constituencies forms no just bar to our right,
but rather imposes on us the duty, of joining our counsels with those of
our democratic brethren, and uniting in their efforts to secure the
triumph of our principles.

It is plain that, if the Convention shall at Baltimore adopt a
satisfactory platform of principles before proceeding to select its
candidates, the reason which dictated the withdrawal of the delegations
of the eight States will have ceased, and no motive will remain for
refusing to unite with their sister States nor for holding an adjourned
meeting at Richmond. On the other hand, if the Convention, on
reassembling at Baltimore, shall disappoint the just expectations of the
remaining democratic States, their delegations cannot fail to withdraw
and unite with the eight States which have adjourned to Richmond. In
either event there would be unanimous action in support of our
principles by all the States which can be relied on for casting
democratic electoral votes.

From this statement of facts, is it not evident that the wise and
prudent course now to be pursued by the delegations of the eight States
is to defer assembling in Richmond until the necessity for such meeting
shall become imperative? Ought they not, in view of the already altered
condition of affairs, to return to the Convention at Baltimore and aid
their sister States in the struggle for the recognition of sound
democratic principles? May it not be that their votes would now suffice
to turn the scale, to purge the party creed of all heresies, and to
emblazon on the party banner its honored device of fidelity to the
Constitution and the Union in characters so clear as to defy
misconstruction?

Suppose for a moment that in this last struggle for the right they
should again be overborne: Is it not, then, equally plain that the
delegations of the other democratic States cannot for an instant be
suspected of an intention to refuse to redeem their pledge of withdrawal
from an assemblage which shall persistently determine on the sacrifice
of principle which they themselves have declared indispensable for their
united action to a supposed expediency? And will not all the democratic
States thus withdrawing and adjourning to Richmond be joined by the
true and faithful delegates from Pennsylvania and New Jersey, from
Indiana and New York--aye, from every one of our sister States where
delegates are found imbued with the living principles of our party, but
whose voice has hitherto been stifled in the Convention, because of
their being in the minority of their respective delegations?

For it is a striking fact not to be overlooked in this connection,
that whether the vote had been taken entirely by States or by delegates,
in either event there was a clear majority in the Convention in favor
of the recognition of sound constitutional principles, and it was only
by taking part of the votes by States in units, and another part by
divided States, that an apparent and factitious majority succeeded in
preventing that recognition.

The answer to all the foregoing questions seems to us to be clear and
plain. The line of conduct we suggest leads, in our judgment, to a
reconciliation of differences on a basis of principle. It leads to the
united and harmonious action of our party. It does more, infinitely
more: It secures vastly added strength to that assertion of principles
which none of us would for an instant think of compromising; it compels
their recognition and proudly vindicates the action of the seceding
delegates, who will thus have secured the object of their struggle, and
have merited the applause and gratitude of their democratic brethren.

The contrary course would, we believe, be productive of mischievous
consequences. Time does not permit the action of the regular
organizations of our party in the respective States, and who alone have
the power to speak their will, to meet in council and give instructions
to their delegations. How is the voice of California or of Oregon to be
heard in time? How are the constituencies of Texas and Virginia to met
in State conventions and give authoritative expression of their will
before the middle of June? How can the machinery be put in motion by
which the democratic voters will direct attendance at Baltimore or
Richmond in accordance with their judgment? Evidently, this cannot be
done. Evidently, the delegations already elected are the only ones that can act, and they must
act on their own judgment in a conjuncture which does not allow
opportunity for instruction by their constituencies. A refusal, then, by
the delegates of the seceding States to return to Baltimore, a refusal
to defer the Richmond meeting until there shall be an uncontrollable
necessity for holding it, would inevitably result in incurable division
of our party, the sole conservative organization remaining in our
country; in its final disruption; worse than all, in the endangering of
the successful assertion of its principles, compared with which the
success of a single electoral struggle is unworthy of one moment's
consideration.

Jeff'n Davis

Members of Congress who signed the address: Senators Robert W. Johnson and William K. Sebastian of Arkansas, Alfred Iverson and Robert Toombs of Georgia, Judah P. Benjamin and John Slidell of Louisiana, R. M. T. Hunter and James M. Mason of Virginia, and Representatives Martin J. Crawford, Lucius J. Gartrell, James Jackson, John J. Jones, Peter E. Love, and John W. H. Underwood, all of Georgia, L. Q. C. Lamar of Mississippi, John H. Reagan of Texas, and Muscoe R. H. Garnett and John S. Millson of Virginia.

From The Papers of Jefferson Davis, Volume 6, pp. 289-93. Transcribed from the Washington Constitution, May 17, 1860.